Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll: 57% of “very religious” Americans say businesses shouldn’t be able to refuse service to gays
Hotair ^ | 04/10/2015 | AllahPundit

Posted on 04/10/2015 9:29:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

A sequel to yesterday’s Reuters poll. Again, the most politically salient question, whether Christian business owners should be able to deny service for gay weddings specifically, is conspicuously left out of this survey. (You get three guesses why and the first two don’t count.) But then, RFRA laws aren’t limited to gay weddings either. Theoretically they provide a religious defense to any discrimination lawsuit, not just one involving marriage. What’s useful about these polls is seeing which side the public thinks should prevail in those lawsuits, at least in cases involving a total denial of service to a particular group. (Not only are there no cases like that out there right now, no RFRA statute has ever been used successfully as a defense to discrimination.) Verdict: Even the “very religious” say antidiscrimination laws should trump religious liberty when it comes to turning an entire group away categorically:

yg1

There’s the old paradox at work — Americans broadly support the right of business owners to refuse service for any reason, but once you specify that the reason might involve some personal objection to a historically disfavored group, the numbers flip. Interestingly, when asked whether eliminating discrimination or protecting religious liberty is more important to them, 59 percent of “very religious” voters say the latter versus just 35 percent who say the former. In theory, they want the business owner’s religious liberty right to trump the gay customer’s right to be served. But not in practice, when you ask them about that specific scenario.

Needless to say, the “you can’t refuse service to someone because of who they are” rule doesn’t apply to every group. Here’s what happened when YouGov asked whether a religious business owner should be able to turn away a member of a hate group like the KKK. Top line is “should,” second line is “should not,” third is “not sure”:

yg2

The groups most supportive of the business owner’s right to tell the Klansman, “Hit the bricks, scumbag”: Conservatives and Republicans, whom the media would have you believe belong to a party that is itself one big klavern. Democrats can’t even get to 50 percent support and liberals actually oppose the right to deny service here on balance. (Other groups with pluralities who oppose kicking the Klan out: Northeasterners, Latinos, and people who make more than $100,000 per year, although some of those subsamples could be dodgy due to high margins of error.) I assume that’s slippery-slope logic at work. Liberals could argue that it’s okay to deny service to the KKK but not to gays and lesbians because of the exceptional immorality of the first group, but codifying an “exceptional immorality” exemption to discrimination laws would be hard. They could fall back on the argument that, moral distinctions aside, joining the Klan is a choice while being gay is not, but of course not everyone agrees with the latter so that argument wouldn’t get them far. They could argue that gays have been historically disempowered until recently and therefore, like racial and religious minorities, deserve special protection from antidiscrimination laws that political groups don’t. But that argument will become increasingly hard to maintain as gays grow more powerful politically. After all, as I write this, we’re probably less than three months away from the Supreme Court granting gay-marriage supporters supreme victory. Evidently, in the interest of avoiding all those tangles and limiting exemptions to antidiscrimination laws as strictly as possible, liberals would force Memories Pizza to plate a slice of deep dish for the local Grand Dragon rather than grant them the right to turn him — and thus, potentially, some more sympathetic customer — away.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last
To: jonno
We are losing the battle because we are not properly defining the issue. The issue is not about homosexuals per se; it is about homosexual ACTIVITY.

We are not able to properly define the issue because we do not own the studios, microphones, transmitters, satellite links, or airwaves.

All means of mass communications lie in the hand of Liberal Democrat Urban dwellers who refuse to let dissenting opinions reach the public. *THEY* dishonestly frame the debate to deliberately support their position. They don't want the truth, they want distorted truth to reach the people.

We will never solve this problem until we cut them off at the knees. Both News and Entertainment media are nothing but one big massive propaganda tool for the left.

61 posted on 04/10/2015 10:29:10 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We should start and end this argument thus: neither gays nor anyone else has a “right” to be served by any business.
One can claim a “right” to anything, as long as no one else must be compelled to act in order to exercise that “right”.


62 posted on 04/10/2015 10:29:26 AM PDT by Ignatz (Winner of a prestigious 1960 Y-chromosome award!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
I don’t remember ever being asked if I was straight or gay when I have entered any business.

There is a major subsection of the "gay" community that makes a point of informing anyone and everyone as to their degree of "gayness". They won't let you ignore it. They insist that you know about it and affirm it. They are literally drama queens.

63 posted on 04/10/2015 10:31:35 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Slanted poll.

No one has a problem with selling homos a cup of coffee. That's not the debate.

The question, if unbiased, would be "Do you believe religious people should be forced to assist in a ceremony or ritual that disagrees with their faith?"
Christians should NOT have to assist in a Satanic ceremony. They should not have to assist in a homosexual ceremony or ritual, because it's roots go back to the ceremonies and rituals conducted by the early Satanists. (It was their way of spitting into the face of God)

64 posted on 04/10/2015 10:33:39 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes, if a bar doesn’t want whites or non-bikers in it, or hippies, or men, or non-Italians, it should be able to do that.

That used to be common sense.


65 posted on 04/10/2015 10:42:54 AM PDT by ansel12 (Palin--Mr President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jonno
It’s very simple. We are not about refusing people - we are about refusing to participate in promoting whatever activity that we find objectionable.

You're being asked to participate in what your religion refers to as an unholy ceremony. According to the Christan faith, only male and female can be joined together in HOLY matrimony and be made one. Anything other than that is considered an an abomination - a very very sinful act. No one should be forced by law into committing a sin against their conscience and against their own immortal souls.

66 posted on 04/10/2015 10:47:41 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Ignatz
We should start and end this argument thus: neither gays nor anyone else has a “right” to be served by any business. One can claim a “right” to anything, as long as no one else must be compelled to act in order to exercise that “right”.

Yep, but the last generation has no idea what freedoms the Constitution gives us and the tyranny it protects us from. They are deaf, dumb, and blind to what's happening to them and their children, and their children's children.
Somehow, copies of the Constitutional Amendments (In an easy to read form) have to be spread out everywhere across the net where people can find them or stumble across them . If only half the people read them, we're that many people ahead plus some, because people will talk to each other.

67 posted on 04/10/2015 10:59:47 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
You should be able to turn away anyone, for any reason.

That has not been legal since we decided to pervert the Commerce Clause as the only route to dismantling Jim Crow.

Thank you, Southern Democrats.


68 posted on 04/10/2015 11:01:40 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

First, the government should never demand that anyone other than a slave provide service to another against his will, and there are not supposed to be slaves in this country any more.

Second, if government is going to meddle in private business, there is a huge difference between refusing to sell something off the shelf to a customer and refusing to engage in creative, artistic expression on behalf of a prospective client. To compel objectionable expression is an unforgivable act of supreme evil.

The thugs are intentionally framing this question in a deceptive manner in order to compel their preferred response. Liberals disgust me.


69 posted on 04/10/2015 11:04:45 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Looks like I am in the tiny minority here. Bakers should bake. If queers want to spend their money on a wedding cake, I say businesses should comply and fill their request. I dont think the government should have the power to force bakers to make wedding cakes for queers, but I think they are wrong to refuse them service.


70 posted on 04/10/2015 11:15:32 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (Lore God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Looks like I am in the tiny minority here. Bakers should bake. If queers want to spend their money on a wedding cake, I say businesses should comply and fill their request. I dont think the government should have the power to force bakers to make wedding cakes for queers, but I think they are wrong to refuse them service.
71 posted on 04/10/2015 11:16:05 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (Lord God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Jesus wasn't a fan of the “very religious” back in the day.
Nor was He a fan of the hypocrites (often the same thing).
72 posted on 04/10/2015 11:25:32 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Wouldn’t this whole issue be somewhat abated if we ruled out using the word gay and instead replaced it with the expression “men who orally enjoy other men’s anuses” ?


73 posted on 04/10/2015 11:26:11 AM PDT by jlindseyx42 (Namaste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

RE: I dont think the government should have the power to force bakers to make wedding cakes for queers

Well, regardless of whether you will do it or not, it SHOULD be a free country where people decide for themselves what they own conscience tells them is right or wrong.

Here’s where we agree — GOVERNMENT should BUTT OUT of the decision and courts should simply THROW OUT the case if a business declines to service any gay ceremony.


74 posted on 04/10/2015 11:33:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

Agreed. However, homosexuality notwithstanding, the right to choose associations is the hallmark of a free society.

Which is why this should not be merely a debate about whether homosexuals can force me to come to their wedding; we need to make this about the broader issue - true freedom to choose.

We will not win the hearts and minds of the populace by making this merely a religious argument...


75 posted on 04/10/2015 11:51:28 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Thanks to a perverted reading of the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution, citizens' rights to free association has been gutted whenever those citizens dare to open up so much as a neighborhood lemonade stand. As someone else in this forum has already mentioned, the US Supreme Court misused the Commerce Clause to abrogate the very fundamental constitutional freedom of association in the name of eliminating Jim Crow Laws. The original Federal Court rulings strictly applied to those businesses whose custom depended on Federally-supported transportation infrastructures, such as US Highways, or train stations supporting interstate commerce. Businesses, such as bus systems, restaurants, hotels, and drugstores benefitting from Federal infrastructure were the only intended targets of this very obvious infringement on peoples' rights by judicial fiat, and that solely for the purpose of ensuring that all United States citizens would be ensured access to the life-basics of food, clothing, and shelter. Now, the last time that I checked, a wedding cake and floral spray do not counts as life-basics, and therefore, are not sufficient reasons to trample upon citizens' freedom of association or, just as importantly, non-association.
76 posted on 04/10/2015 12:03:13 PM PDT by Trentamj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Wyrd bið ful aræd; All
"RE: You should be able to turn away anyone, for any reason.

And that reason includes the color of one’s skin or one’s ethnicity?

In a free market, I would aggressively boycott any business that discriminated against folks on the basis of their race. Wouldn't you? I think such wrong-headed businesses would very likely be pressured or hounded out of business, peacefully and civilly.

That said, I would be okay with State laws that prohibited discrimination against fellow Americans based on something so removed from behavior as a person's race.

But homosexuality is a behavior, no more identifiable at a glance than someone's ethnicity. MANY people of 100 percent Chinese bloodlines, or 100 percent Japanese bloodlines, are ethnically AMERICAN, for example.

Cruz nails this when he defines it as a matter of religious freedom.

77 posted on 04/10/2015 12:39:20 PM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

Correct.


78 posted on 04/10/2015 1:13:17 PM PDT by svcw (Not 'hope and change' but 'dopes in chains')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Let’s remember that Reuters is the last gasp of British fascists to keep alive Goebbel’s Nazi Propaganda Ministry. Reuters has been caught numerous times publishing fake photos, especially of Israelis bombing “innocent” civilians.


79 posted on 04/10/2015 5:44:43 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson